In these two dialogues, Plato sets before us two farther specimens of that error and confusion which beset the enquirer during his search after “reasoned truth.” Sokrates forces upon the attention of a companion two of the most familiar words of the market-place, to see whether a clear explanation of their meaning can be obtained.

Hipparchus—Question——What is the definition of Lover of Gain? He is one who thinks it right to gain from things worth nothing. Sokrates cross-examines upon this explanation. No man expects to gain from things which he knows to be worth nothing: in this sense, no man is a lover of gain

In the dialogue called Hipparchus, the debate turns on the definition of τὸ ϕιλοκερδὲς or ὁ ϕιλοκερδής—the love of gain or the lover of gain. Sokrates asks his companion to define the word. The companion replies—He is one who thinks it right to gain from things worth nothing. Does he do this (asks Sokrates) knowing that the things are worth nothing? or not knowing? If the latter, he is simply igno rant. He knows it perfectly well (is the reply). He is cunning and wicked; and it is because he cannot resist the temptation of gam, that he has the impudence to make profit by such things, though well aware that they are worth nothing. Sokr.—Suppose a husbandman, knowing that the plant which he is tending is worthless—and yet thinking that he ought to gain by it: does not that correspond to your description of the lover of gain? Comp.—The lover of gain, Sokrates, thinks that he ought to gain from every thing. Sokr.—Do not answer in that reckless manner, as if you had been wronged by any one; but answer with attention. man is the person cognizant of the value of plants.